NCAA TOURNAMENT: CHOOSE-YOUR-OWN-ADVENTURE STYLE

March 15, 2015Nick Elam

On the Scale of Self-Assuredness (where 0 = Just Spitballin’ and 10 = I’ve Got It!), writer rates this idea as a 9.

The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Selection Committee, comprised of several hard-working and knowledgeable athletic directors from various Division I institutions, received its annual dose of harsh criticism, from experts and casual fans alike, for the tournament bracket it developed and released on Sunday. But many casual fans might not realize just how difficult the process is, or all of the factors that must be considered when building the bracket. In addition to the relative performance of teams leading up to Selection Sunday (the primary factor, obviously), the Committee must also consider teams’ expected performance going forward (based on injuries, suspensions, etc.), geography, conference affiliation, previous meetings between teams, and even restrictions/obligations related to religion. What starts as a 1-68 ranking, which must be daunting to develop in itself, can turn into an absolute brainteaser by the time each team is placed on the bracket in a way that meets all of the NCAA’s conditions. No wonder the Committee never seems to please everyone!

But why does it have to be this hard? What if the Committee only had to focus on determining who is in, rank them purely on their performance to date, and leave the rest to the participating teams. I mean, sure it’s nice that Kentucky’s historic season has earned them the Tournament path deemed most favorable by the Selection Committee. But why shouldn’t they earn the Tournament path that Kentucky deems most favorable?

Let brackets and drafts combine, to allow the most-deserving teams to select the most desirable path for themselves. The process would take several steps: first, teams (proceeding in the rank order determined by the Committee) would select its preferred Round of 64 opponent (the Committee would determine First Four pairings, though this wouldn’t be necessary if the opening round were more robust). Now suppose teams trust Kenpom rankings more than the Committee’s rankings, and that each team selects the most inferior available team based on Kenpom rankings. Kentucky would select Texas Southern (#207 in Kenpom); Villanova would select Lafayette (#195 in Kenpom); and so on, until the following 32 pairings were made (number in parentheses indicates Kenpom ranking):

Now we start back at the top, and teams (again, proceeding in order of the Committee’s rankings) select their desired potential match-up in the Round of 32, and the site for their first two games (I would say that no team can select its home site, but that an especially fortunate team could – however unlikely – be selected to play in its home site). Assuming that each team picks the nearest available site (which isn’t always advisable, if such a site is nearer to a potential opponent), and the safest possible Round of 32 match-up based on Kenpom rankings, 16 pods would be created like so:

Teams would then select their preferred Final Four match-up, and the bracket would be set like so (notice there are no more 1-16 seeds, only 1-68 Committee rankings):

MIDWEST

SOUTH

1 Kentucky

4 Wisconsin

61 Texas Southern

60 Belmont

.

.

29 Cincinnati

28 VCU

40 Georgia

34 Oklahoma State

.

.

15 Louisville

9 Iowa State

59 New Mexico State

65 North Florida/66 Robert Morris

.

.

21 SMU

19 West Virginia

36 Purdue

48 Buffalo

.

.

11 Oklahoma

7 Gonzaga

56 Northeastern

53 Eastern Washington

.

.

23 Butler

32 San Diego State

35 LSU

50 Stephen F. Austin

.

.

17 Utah

12 Notre Dame

55 Georgia State

47 Wyoming

.

.

25 Michigan State

16 Georgetown

42 UCLA

52 Harvard

.

.

.

.

EAST

WEST

2 Villanova

5 Virginia

63 Lafayette

64 Coastal Carolina

.

.

14 Maryland

18 Arkansas

49 Wofford

51 Valparaiso

.

.

13 North Carolina

20 Northern Iowa

54 UC Irvine

37 Indiana

.

.

39 Ohio State

26 Wichita State

41 Texas

45 Boise State/46 Dayton

.

.

3 Duke

6 Arizona

62 North Dakota State

67 Manhattan/68 Hampton

.

.

38 Davidson

22 Providence

44 BYU/43 Mississippi

30 Oregon

.

.

10 Baylor

8 Kansas

57 UAB

58 Albany

.

.

27 Iowa

24 Xavier

31 North Carolina State

33 St. John’s

Of course, not every team would base their selections solely on Kenpom rankings, or select sites solely on distance. But that’s what would make a bracket draft so fascinating. Some teams would look for match-ups that maximize their own strengths and exploit their opponent’s weaknesses. Some teams would pursue match-ups with teams they’ve already faced (perhaps even conference rivals); others would steer away from rematches. Some teams would pick the nearest site, even if a nearer potential opponent was in line to play there; others might play the geography game more conservatively. Some coaches might pursue match-ups with former mentors or proteges; others might avoid such match-ups.

Just think of the narratives! Only these narratives would be legitimate, with match-ups hand-picked by the participants themselves. This format would turn up the heat on every Tournament game.

“You wanted us? Well, you got it.”

And the possibilities go way beyond the format described above (a format that could easily be implemented in our other favorite professional and college sports). Perhaps teams could redraft (proceeding in the order of the original Committee rankings) after every two rounds (which would indirectly place significantly greater importance on regular season play, but would directly change the way we conduct tournament betting pools). Or, instead of pre-determining a fixed number of teams to participate (whose overall qualifications vary from year to year), perhaps a pre-determined set of criteria could be established that qualifies a team for inclusion in the tournament (and the number of teams in the tournament would fluctuate slightly from year to year).

Maybe the draft rounds would be super quick, with the entire draft lasting only a couple hours on the evening of Selection Sunday. Or maybe it could be an all-day affair. In any case, letting teams choose their own path is a most sensible way to add to the Madness.